Wow! From 'we the people' to 'we the non-governmental...'
>We gathered in Prague for an exceptionally broad, inclusive, international
>protest against the discriminatory and unjust policies of the IMF and the
>World Bank. We oppose the undemocratic and elitist character of both the
>institutions and the meetings they hold.
I wonder how the opposition here of 'exceptionally broad, inclusive, international protest' on the one hand, with 'undemocratic and elitist character' of the World Bank and IMF stands up? Conceiving of themselves as an alliance of NGOs, the protesters have the character of an alternative elite, rather than the people v the elite.
>We came to Prague to act in solidarity with the millions who could not be in
>Prague: the impoverished women farmers of Africa, the workers laid off in
>Asia, the Pacific and Caribbean islanders denied credit for their
>livelihoods, the young women working in Latin American sweatshops.
So the NGO alliance acts as interlocutor for the world's poor - but how representative is it? No meaningful structure of representation exists between the NGOs and the poor, save artificial 'consultation exercises'.
>We have spent our time in Prague not only protesting, but also discussing
>positive, people-centered alternatives to the debt crisis, structural
>adjustment programs, corrupt and environmentally devastating infrastructure
>projects, and the economic philosophy of development through exploitation of
>both the ecology and large majorities of the people in the South and in the
>East.
Sounds interesting. I wonder if these programmes will be put to the people whose interests they espouse.
>
>At the same time we denounce the psychological terror and physical
>repression executed by the Czech police forces before and during the
>conference of the IMF and World Bank.
Of course, such repression is reprehensible, but as the statement suggests the Czech police had some problems to deal with. It would be unfortunate if the protest took a turn towards de-legitimising Czech civil institutions, that are already under the EC spotlight.
>We note that the World Bank itself has acknowledged this month that its
>policies are failing. Its World Development Report, although subjected to
>censorship within the institution, offers a revealing critique of the
>growth-centered development philosophy that has long been the Bank's adamant
>answer to every question.
Here the turning point of the document: the central thesis derives its authority from the World Bank report itself. The somewhat coy presentation is that the WB has been forced to acknowledge its failures. But stripped of this form the point is that the WB and the protesters share the same conceptual framework: a rejection of growth centred development.
The convenient fiction that the WB of old adhered to the growth-centred philosophy makes the agreement appear as a criticism. But in truth Western financial institutions were always dedicated to maintaining the West's monopoly on new technologies and means of production. By contrast nationalist regimes, like Nkrumah's or Nasser's fought to secure such growth in the face of Western sabotage. If the WB was ever committed to a philosophy of development, it was only in the most restricted sense of development within the terms of the defence of the West's monopoly over trade and industry. For most of Africa and South Asia, the problem has not been a growth-based philosophy, but the absence of growth, even of the restricted kind of capitalist growth.
Now here is the World Bank heaping ashes on itself and saying to the protesters outside, yes, of course, you are right, we were wrong, growth is bad for the third world. Doesn't it make you the least bit suspicious?
>And its report on the transition economies of the
>former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe has revealed a tenfold increase in
>poverty, from 2% to 21%, a clear indication that the neo-liberal recipe
>peddled by the IMF and World Bank has failed yet another entire region of
>the globe.
Interesting slippage here, that the problem in EE is presented as one of neo-liberal recipe. Why is the problem in EE not 'growth centred philosophy', as elsewhere in the world? Because nobody would dare to suggest that EE was suffering from excessive growth. On the contrary, its industry and economy has contracted. That, not growth, is the basis of the impoverishment of East Europe.
>Signed*:
>
>Focus on the Global South - Thailand (Nicola Bullard)
>Initiative Against Economic Globalization (INPEG) - Czech Republic (Alice
>Dvorska)
>50 Years Is Enough Network - USA (Soren Ambrose)
>EuroMarches Against Unemployment - Austria (Leo Gabriel)
>ATTAC France (Christophe Aguiton)
>Jubilee 2000 South Africa/Jubilee South - South Africa (Dennis Brutus)
>Center for Economic & Policy Research - USA (Mark Weisbrot)
>Rights Action - USA (Annie Bird)
>National Free Union of Students - Germany (Stefan Bienefeld)
>Zashita Trade Union / Alternativy Association - Russia (Boris Kagarlitsky)
So, German students, Austrian welfare advocates, some American and French activists along with one Russian (much published in the West), Boris Kagarlitsky, a Czech and a South African. Oh and Thai Teresa Bullard.
-- James Heartfield
Great Expectations: the creative industries in the New Economy is available from Design Agenda, 4.27 The Beaux Arts Building, 10-18 Manor Gardens, London, N7 6JT Price 7.50 GBP + 1GBP p&p